“Mutual Historical Understanding”: the Basis for Taiwan-Mainland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
8 “Mutual Historical Understanding”: The Basis for Taiwan-Mainland Relations in the Twenty-First Century Introduction The concept of protest played a vitally important role in the defini- tion and development of Taiwanese consciousness. From the period of the early Chinese migrations, through the era of Japanese colo- nization, to the conflicts of retrocession and Nationalist rule, and into the post-martial law period, protest and opposition has shaped Taiwanese identity. And yet the protest in modern Taiwan that has been directed at Communist China also brings with it risks and dangers. Resolving the Taiwan-Mainland relationship is perhaps the most pressing issue in East Asia in the twenty-first century—an issue that fills people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait with anxiety and uncertainty. This conflict threatens not only the future of Taiwan and China but also the peace and stability of East Asia as a whole. Is it possible to discover a firm basis for resolving this pressing issue and for repairing the relationship between Taiwan and Mainland China? In this chapter we will suggest that if both parties gained a better historical understanding of themselves and their neighbor, such a heartfelt historical understanding might be able to function as the basis for reconciliation. In support of this suggestion, we will look first at the indispensability of historical understanding for both parties in this relationship. Genuine human relationships are established for the sake of, at the very least, not hurting either party involved; not hurting either party requires knowing each other well, and knowing each other well consists in understanding 153 Taiwan in Transformation each other’s history. Therefore, if the Taiwan-Mainland relationship is to be healed, then such healing will depend on a mutual historical understanding of both parties. What, then, are the key points in the histories of both sides? In Taiwan’s case, the key factor is its sad history of imperial oppres- sion, which in turn spawned an acute yearning for independence. In light of this, we can reject the most commonly proposed “quick-fix” solution: the quick reunification of Taiwan with the Mainland. This “solution” would hurt Taiwan, overriding its hard-earned institutions and autonomy, and it would also hurt the Mainland by sowing seeds of disunity. China remains ignorant of the historical reasons behind Taiwan’s identity and unaware, for example, that Taiwan’s four- hundred-year separation from the Mainland in political relations and sentiment has made it independent yet led it to feel always nostalgic for an “ideal” cultural China, a yearning to “return home” and reunite amid a cultural spring. And yet the Taiwanese must understand the historical factors and events that shaped the Mainland and its present sentiment toward Taiwan, that “Taiwan is part of one China.” In light of our historical grasp of Mainland China, we will then be able to criticize quick- fix solution number two: quick independence of Taiwan from the Mainland. This “solution” would be detrimental to Taiwan. Our neglect of the historical and attitudinal links between the Mainland and Taiwan would only rouse increasing hostility in the Mainlanders, which could result in military action against Taiwan. Such a violent backlash is not something we in Taiwan could face. Instead, each side needs to cultivate a thorough understanding of the historical backgrounds of both parties involved. This will help us to establish a rational basis for resolving our problems, and find a way to create the conditions for harmony and mutual understanding. An adequate historical understanding by both parties is absolutely indis- pensable if we are to resolve the Taiwan-Mainland conflict satisfactorily in this new century. The Importance of Historical Understanding In this section, we will examine two questions: First, why is a historical understanding of both Taiwan and Mainland China so indispensable for managing their relationship? And second, in what respects do the two popular quick-fix proposals for managing this relationship lack this requisite historical understanding? 154 “Mutual Historical Understanding” The Taiwan-Mainland relationship is perhaps the most pressing problem facing Taiwan today. Yet few really comprehend how to resolve it satisfactorily. This burning, emotional issue has produced much heat, but hardly any light able to guide us to an appropriate solution. The suggestions of quick unification or quick independence are both in vogue in Taiwan, yet these proposals are impatient and naïve, and they lack a depth of mutual historical understanding. Before tackling the main issue, we must underscore the importance of our rationale; that is, that any negotiations regarding relationships between any social groups require, as their basis, some mutual histori- cal understanding of all parties involved by all parties involved. When making this suggestion, we often hear a common, understandable—yet misguided—objection. According to this objection, the situation of these two political groups across the Taiwan Strait is uneventful if not peaceful or ami- cable, and this stable condition, in all probability, will persist into the indefinite future. Therefore, any talk of resolution is unnecessary; the stability of the status quo and its likelihood of continuation are secure and well established. For examples of this view, we could look at Ralph N. Clough’s article “Taiwan-PRC Relations,” which concluded that in the future, after the economic integration of Taiwan with the Mainland and Hong Kong, Taiwan’s economic position will continue to improve internationally, while the Taiwanese identity problem will remain unresolved.1 We could also look at the December 2012 Opin- ion Poll on Cross-Strait Relations issued by the ROC Executive Yuan’s Council of Mainland Affairs. This opinion poll examined the opinions of Taiwanese people regarding cross-strait relations, and it claimed that 83.7 percent of respondents prefer maintaining the status quo—only 3 percent sought quick-fix unification with the Mainland, while another 7.2 percent wanted quick-fix independence.2 Two important points must be raised against the above objection: one concerning two dangers of blind complacency with the status quo, and another that the objection altogether misses the basic point at issue. First, maintaining the present “stable” situation without tackling the issue could involve two risks. Maintaining the present situation amounts to sitting on a time bomb and negligently refusing to deal with it at all. This bomb is the crisis of Taiwanese identity, which lies dormant but ready to explode and destroy Taiwan at any moment. A bomb hardly needs to be large to do great damage. The 10.2 percent of respondents in that same opinion poll who support either of the 155 Taiwan in Transformation quick-fix options is already enough to destabilize the entire situation, currently in an uneasy state. If popular sentiments about Taiwanese identity are suppressed and finally killed, then Taiwan qua Taiwan is already gone; there can be nothing more said about “peace” if it is bought at the price of authentic existence. Second, this objection fails to realize that any negotiation regard- ing human relationships must be conducted on the basis of mutual historical understanding of every party involved. This indispensable condition must be enforced; otherwise each party risks the death of its own integrity. Discussing the two extreme positions is an explication of this point; the relative stability of the present situation is finally not relevant to the discussion. Yet why is it necessary for each party to have such a historical understanding? In brief, the rationale is as follows: (1) A human rela- tionship should consist of and be consummated in a mutual thriving, in which no party is harmed. (2) In order not to hurt either side, each party must understand all parties involved in the relationship. (3) Every human entity, no matter whether personal, political, or cultural, bears a historical background. To know a person, an ethnic group, a nation, a culture, one must understand its history, which forms the distinctive integrity of that human entity; this is especially and urgently true in the Chinese world. (4) Therefore, a good Taiwan-Mainland relation- ship will depend, critically, on a good, mutual understanding of their respective histories. The third point requires some elaboration. To understand a person, we must hear that person’s life story. Human integrity consists of the human biography, verbalized or not, that a person always bears in his or her heart. This is especially true of China. China’s political identity and cultural integrity consist in its history. In China, politics is cultural, and the historical accumulation of its political-cultural experience constitutes its integrity. Let us take this even slower. A person is a bundle of personal experi- ences held together by memory through time. This is personal identity across time, one’s story self-composed and remembered through time. Such a holding together of memories and experiences across time is, in effect, historical consciousness. Therefore, personal identity is rooted in one’s sense of historical consciousness. Since a society is a collec- tive person, a society’s identity consists in its possession of historical consciousness. 156 “Mutual Historical Understanding” As we have said, this is especially true of China, as an ethnic group, a culture, and a nation. The Chinese traditionally have upheld the ideal of the good ordering of the world through politics.3 This ideal has been a central core of nostalgia in Chinese culture since even before the time of Confucius. Therefore, in China, politics is cultural, and culture is often political in tone. This ideal has been tried, failed, and been tried again, and the records of the vicissitudes of these cultural-political experi- ments are what make up the history of China.4 No wonder China is a people, a culture, a land with such a strong historical consciousness.